Cyclists, campaigners and road safety figures have expressed concern after Labour’s shadow transport secretary began to outline her stance on active travel policies, 20mph speed limits and low-traffic neighbourhoods.
With the Labour Party enjoying a lead in excess of 20 percentage points in the polls, and widely expected to form the next government of the United Kingdom following the general election due before January 2025, attention for many has turned to analysing what a Labour government might look like, Cycling UK last month calling for shadow transport secretary Louise Haigh to outline “Labour’s long-term plans for transport – in particular, taking into account the needs of people and families who don’t have access to a car”.
And while the speeches from the party’s recent conference in Liverpool were still largely quite vague – Sir Keir Starmer promising to build the “next generation” of new towns with “transport options fit for the future” – in speaking to the Independent, Haigh has begun to reveal more of her views on active travel and transport policies with implications for cycling.
Answering the question, ‘does she cycle?’ Haigh responded: “God no, have you been to Sheffield?”
Telling the newspaper she drives a petrol Nissan Juke, Haigh suggested Rishi Sunak had “demeaned himself” by saying the Labour Party would pursue a ‘war on motorists’.
Interestingly, she went on to say 20mph speed limits and low-traffic neighbourhoods should be a matter decided by local people and argued many of the most-criticised councils who had implemented apparently unpopular schemes were Conservative local authorities.
Concluding the transport section of the interview, Haigh said there would be no Labour Party diktat that people should walk or cycle more.
Sharing the interview online, Dr Robert Davis, the Chair of the Road Danger Reduction Forum said “this would make Labour less responsible than [Boris] Johnson’s government”. Likewise, another sharer Jim Smithson suggested, with more than a touch of sarcasm, that it was “inspirational stuff from our next transport minister”.
The words also attracted attention from one person who replied to Haigh’s suggestion that cycling in Sheffield was not an option due to the hills by asking: “For god’s sake can an e-bike manufacturer please make sure everyone in government or future government has actually tried one and found out for themselves how great they are and how cheap to run?”
Leicestershire Loves Cycling, a campaign group for cycling in the county, added that nobody wants to force everyone to walk or cycle, just that walking and cycling should be enabled to be “the most attractive options for short journeys”.
The shadow transport secretary’s comments have come as a disappointment to many who were hoping to see the poll-leading Labour Party take a big step away from the rhetoric of the current government, heard at last month’s Conservative Party Conference as Rishi Sunak and transport secretary Mark Harper outlined a ‘Plan for Motorists’ to end the so-called war on motorists.

Active travel groups despaired at the Tories’ proposed measures – including curbing the introduction of 20mph speed limits, allowing drivers to use bus lanes more frequently, and barely mentioning cycling at all – the CEOs of Cycling UK, British Cycling, Bikeability Trust, Living Streets, Ramblers and Sustrans coming together to state the proposals would “rob people of choice” and force them to drive.
Cycling UK in particular was especially vocal, accusing the Conservatives of an “ill-fated attempt to win” votes with pro-motoring policies that would risk “undermining” active travel success.
A week later, to the backdrop of Labour’s turn to host a conference, the cycling charity called for the party to “demonstrate bravery” by making its new homes plan active travel-focused, ditching “roads-only network” and reliance on cars.
“Labour has promised a decade of national renewal, including building 1.5 million new homes,” Sarah McMonagle, director of external affairs at Cycling UK, said in a statement following Starmer’s conference speech.
“These new neighbourhoods will also need transport options fit for the future, not the roads-only network that typifies so many recent large housing developments, leaving people with no option but to rely on cars.
“These new homes must have excellent links to public transport, be close to the services people need, and designed and planned so that walking or cycling for short journeys are obvious, safe, and attractive options for most people. Planning permission shouldn’t be granted without these elements designed in.
“But we needed to hear more from Louise Haigh about Labour’s long-term plans for transport – in particular, taking into account the needs of people and families who don’t have access to a car.
“Keir Starmer mentioned the need for bravery, and we now need Labour to demonstrate that bravery by setting out the party’s plans for a transport future that gives more people real opportunities to walk or cycle short journeys. That’s a far better way to tackle the cost-of-living and climate crises, but also to massively improve our health, wealth, and well-being.”





















41 thoughts on “Concern as Labour shadow transport secretary comments on plans for cycling, 20mph speed limits and active travel schemes”
I’ll wait for the manifestos
I’ll wait for the manifestos to turn up but this isn’t looking good.
I’d be shocked if Starmer
I’d be shocked if Starmer doesn’t turn out to be the same wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Well now “party of change”
Well now “party of change” Rishi’s brought back Cameron, is it too soon for Starmer to copy him in that too and return Tony Blair or Peter Mandelson to the top?
(A: always too soon with them…)
Easier to just stand next to
Easier to just stand next to some mirrors..
I’m not filled with
I’m not filled with confidence about a Tory-lite government, but it could hardly be any worse. I hope Labour win, but with enough Green wins to make them re-think their priorities. Maybe a coalition would be the best option.
Can’t see the Greens with (m
Can’t see the Greens with (m)any more than their current single MP.
Fingers crossed this is just another Labour tactic to avoid giving the Daily Mail material to use against them.
The new seat of Bristol
The new seat of Bristol Central has a strong chance of going Green
Car Delenda Est wrote:
Bristol is a bit of an outlier though – we’re currently Labour, but surrounded by Conservatives. It wouldn’t surprise me to see a lot more support for the Greens though (despite the rantings BTL on the Bristol Post).
An example of the first past
An example of the first past the post problem. Will the Greens split the vote and let the Tories in.
Bungle_52 wrote:
I hope not! I’d guess that there’s concern about the environment across the political spectrum, though maybe the far right doesn’t care about other people in other countries, though more dramatic weather events are going to increase immigration as places become uninhabitable.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Bristol is a bit of an outlier though – we’re currently Labour, but surrounded by Conservatives. It wouldn’t surprise me to see a lot more support for the Greens though (despite the rantings BTL on the Bristol Post).— Car Delenda Est
Exactly. North Somerset is conservative (Liam Fox!) and will probably remain so until the sun is a dying ember in the sky…
Conservatives will get
Conservatives will get another term… sozza.
These reported comments, to me at least, confirm that the tory PR machine is dictating the conversation.
Tories: We’re ending the war on motorists
Labour: We’re making sure to be seen as motorist friendly too
How I see it all playing out… Tories play for the cheap seats, pushing a populist agenda that engages the knuckle dusters… Labour will be forced to either educate those knuckle dusters on why their knee jerk opinions are wrong (which is hard work and ultimately won’t work), or focus on policies to appease these voters stirred up / fueled by tory hate. In doing so, the discussion goes away from anything important, effective or relevant to the UK’s long term health.
In the mid-ground, Labour’s lack of action / policies on anything important, will lead to more disillusioned voters voting on principal, and indeed vote Green, independent etc.
The high earners will continue to vote blue, as after 13 years, those at the top are either ‘old’ money who simply don’t see the struggles of the common man, or they are selfish ass-hats, who have flourished due to conservative policies enabling them to rinse the common man.
So in summary… Labour won’t be right wing or populist enough to win the knuckle duster vote, in their attempt to do so will alienate their biggest potential audience. True reds will continue to vote red, true blues will continue to vote blue. Greens, Independents, Lib Dems will have a strong election, but at the end of the day, Tories gains from the right-wing knuckle dusters will get them the 30-whatever percent needed for another term.
Utterly, utterly depressing, but utterly, utterly predictable.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
It’s certainly a sad state of affairs when we let our politics be run by the opinions of the “knuckle draggers”, but looking behind that, I think it’s fair to say that Murdoch has had a big hand in shaping our politics and Russians have certainly had a big influence when you look at the size of donations to the Tories.
Public opinion can be changed, but the mainstream media has a large amount of bias towards the Tories – I just find it so difficult to believe that people can’t see through the divisive politics and the insane cruelty demonstrated by Braverman.
What we need to do is to return to a sense of community, where that means helping people who may be less fortunate than yourself rather than looking to exploit them as much as possible.
Sorry to sound like a broken
Sorry to sound like a broken record but with first past the post it is relatively easy to rig the system to get a majority in parliament. What worries me is that previous tory voters will transfer their votes to non labour parties and split the vote thus letting the tories in again.
It seems to me to be a great pity that non of the opposition parties are willing to embrace electoral pacts which would prevent this happening. Look at the results of the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election
Tory 45.2% Labour 43.6% Green 2.9% Lib Dem 1.7%
If either the Greens or even the Lib Dem voters had voted Labour the Tories would have lost.
Bungle_52 wrote:
That’s entirely possible and I’m certainly no fan of First Past the Post. On the one hand it can lead to overwhelming majorities which are useful for parties that want to implement their policies, but on the other hand it also enable populist parties to seize power and implement fascism (see Bacon Tax Sunak and his proposal to abolish human rights).
At least you know where you
At least you know where you stand with the tories, they tell you straight to your face. Labour stab you in the back when promising you the world.
Neither are worth voting for, mores the pity.
“Asked if she’s a cyclist
“Asked if she’s a cyclist Louise Haigh replied: “God no, have you been to Sheffield?”…”
Louise Haigh may have been making a jocular reference to the fact that Sheffield, like Rome, is notoriously built on seven hills. Check out Blake St at 16.6°
The solution to cycling up
The solution to cycling up hills for ordinary folk on bikes is e-bikes.
Or just pedalling harder and
Or just pedalling harder and/or in a lower gear.
If the average person can
If the average person can only produce around 100W at 60-70rpm then they’ll grind to a halt on anything steep even with an 18″ bottom gear and will have to get off and walk. Give them an e-bike though…
Or if their destination is
Or if their destination is not on that particular street it is often possible to take a different route, maybe longer but less steep.
Not all journeys are ideal for cycling. And I stay in Edinburgh; definitely has hills (and a mountain). But 99.9% of the time people *aren’t walking or driving up the high percentage gradients either*…
Somehow though people manage to cycle more in Switzerland and Norway than than the UK.
brooksby wrote:
But what about if you’re a plumber delivering a fridge??
Dnnnnnn wrote:
Why would you get a plumber to deliver a fridge?
hawkinspeter wrote:
One of those flashy American ones that has an ice cube maker plumbed into the mains water supply?
Rendel Harris wrote:
Don’t they just have a water reservoir that you fill up with a jug?
hawkinspeter wrote:
I think that would be regarded by our cousins across the pond as very much a Third World procedure!
hawkinspeter wrote:
Because the glaziers turned you down and the the roofers were busy?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Exactly. And the ULEZ has made the fridge delivery man sell his van. For £1.
While taking his ailing
While taking his ailing grandmother the doctors and moving his oak wardrobe…
DonnyJohnny wrote:
Maybe… or maybe she just means “who cycles? I’ve not seen many round Sheffield”.
More “but we have hills / we have weather” thinking.
Or perhaps – like her boss – it’s just “Nobody rock the boat”.
Having cycled up Blake st on
Having cycled up Blake st on my ebike, it is doable, but hard work. I wonder if she’d like to borrow my ebike for a bit.I could teach her about how to get around Sheffield without a car.
Clickbait story. One
Clickbait story. One interview in a newspaper does not either a manifesto or government policy make. Neither does an off the cuff comment in an interview.
Yeah well, we are physical
Yeah well, we are physical beings in a physical world. There are, for example, hills. Well to go up you have to expend energy, which has to come from somewhere. Using, say, fossil energies comes with certain quite important downsides, once again because of this physical world thing…
So I would say, any and all politics should start from those physical bases of our existence. Fail to do so, (oh my god, there are hills where I live, or it rains sometimes…), you’re not qualified!
Stupid shallow person in
Stupid shallow person in stupid shallow party says stupid shallow thing.
Not exactly news…
The Labour Party: tough on
The Labour Party: tough on hope, tough on the causes of hope.
Ian Carey wrote:
Weak on making Tony Blair stand trial for his war crimes
hawkinspeter wrote:
But intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich* and eager to shore up the failures of the private sector e.g. banks.
* Of course the quote ends “as long as they pay their taxes” – and over time Mandelson has reconsidered (how that made him look)… Also benefit of hindsight by Gordon Brown who apparently – some time after the fact – thought that bankers should have had more negative feedback.
It would interesting to hear
It would interesting to hear Gordon Brown’s explanation of how giving away control of interest rate policy to an unelected body (BoE – run by a Canadian appointed by the government) was somehow proof that Labour could now be trusted on the economy. It seems like the complete opposite. Equally dumb of Cameron and every administration since not to immediately reverse the policy and take back control to the Treasury where it belongs.
The BoE’s interest rate policy of keeping rates at a historic low for so long has caused a massive housing boom but also the cheap credit has meant millions of extra cars on the roads because most cars are bought using personal leases. There are around 33m registered cars in the UK now. Thus more public pressure to build more roads and keep fuel duty low from all the car owners, even less investment in public transport and cycling infrastructure, and more people driving because they’re already paying monthly for a car so why would they leave their car at home and walk, cycle or take public transport to work?
…which is why many of us
…which is why many of us resigned our membership.
More proof that it doesn’t
More proof that it doesn’t matter who you vote for.
srchar wrote:
It does, though.